Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement
[1] 2 Next »

Monday, April 23, 2007

GM's New Fuel-Cell Car

The flexible electric car platform is innovative, but the fuel-cell version is freighted with hydrogen's flaws.

By Kevin Bullis
smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon
The volt returns (top): This schematic (top image) of a new version of GM's Chevrolet Volt concept car is similar to an earlier version announced in January. There are three main differences: 1) the battery pack (blue box) is half as long, in part to make room for one of two hydrogen storage tanks; 2) a gas-powered generator is replaced by a fuel cell; and 3) this version also includes rear-wheel-mounted motors.

Hydrogen hope (bottom): A fuel cell (between wheels) and a battery pack (blue box at center) work together to power one electric motor for the front wheels and two more mounted in the rear wheels. The battery pack can be recharged by being plugged in or by drawing electricity from the fuel cell, generated using hydrogen from one of two storage tanks (foreground).


Credit: GM

Last week General Motors (GM) unveiled a hydrogen-fuel-cell-powered version of its Chevrolet Volt concept, a family of electric cars that get a portion of their energy from being plugged into the electrical grid. The first version, announced in January, married plug-in electric drive to a gasoline or ethanol generator that can recharge the battery.

But swapping out the generator for a fuel cell may be a step backward. That is in part because producing the hydrogen needed to power the fuel-cell version could increase rather than decrease energy demand, and it may not make sense economically.

"The possibility that this vehicle would be built successfully as a commercial vehicle seems to me rather unlikely," says Joseph Romm, who managed energy-efficiency programs at the Department of Energy during the Clinton administration. "If you're going to the trouble of building a plug-in and therefore have an electric drive train and a battery capable of storing a charge, then you could have a cheap gasoline engine along with you, or an expensive fuel cell." Consumers will likely opt for the cheaper version, Romm notes.

Still, the Volt is part of a promising trend toward automotive electrification--which could decrease petroleum use and reduce carbon emissions. It is part of GM's response to an anticipated future in which both petroleum and carbon-dioxide emissions will carry a heavy price, driving consumers to buy vehicles that run on alternative, low-carbon power sources.

The new Volt, announced in Shanghai, replaces the generator with a fuel cell and cuts the battery pack in half, in part to make room for storing hydrogen. The lithium-ion battery pack can be recharged by plugging it in. The fuel cell kicks in immediately when the car is started and provides power at a constant rate at which it is most efficient. If more power is needed, such as for acceleration or high speeds, the battery provides a boost of power, much like what happens in today's gas-electric hybrid vehicles. When less power is needed, such as when the vehicle is stopped or at low speeds, the battery stores energy to be used later.

By allowing the fuel cell to run at a constant rate, the batteries improve efficiency, cutting down on hydrogen consumption. The battery further improves efficiency by storing energy generated during braking. Compared with earlier prototypes, the new concept also uses a more advanced fuel-cell design (thinner stainless-steel parts were substituted for thick composite parts) and the vehicle is lighter, making it possible to have a 300-mile range using half the hydrogen.

The car emits no harmful emissions from the tailpipe. But because hydrogen fuel today is primarily made from fossil fuels this means the carbon-dioxide emissions are simply happening someplace else, Romm notes. He says that using renewable energy to charge up the battery in the gas-generator version of the Volt makes more sense than using it to make hydrogen. That's because it's more efficient to charge a battery than to make hydrogen, compress it, and then convert it back into electricity using a fuel cell.

[1] 2 Next »

Tags

automobiles batteries electric cars electric vehicle ethanol flexible electronics fuel cells

Comments

  • Alternative power
    Taganan on 04/23/2007 at 2:30 AM
    Posts:
    3
    Avg Rating:
    1/5
    Use a small steam engine to generate electricity instead of an IC engine. It would be truly multi-fueled and could use kerosene, furnace fuel oil, ethanol, vegetable oil, propane, methane, LNG, syngas, liquified coal, hydrogen or even gasoline. It would also be cleaner than an IC engine, more durable due to fewer moving parts. Thermoelectric power from the exhaust and used steam would also gain efficiency.

    E-mail beesidemeusa@yahoo.co.uk for more details.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Alternative power
      Taganan on 04/24/2007 at 12:54 PM
      Posts:
      3
      Avg Rating:
      1/5
      W. Dennis McClam -your e-mail site at listnlook is not a valid address per Yahoo and Google lists it, but says it doesn't exist. Please try again with a valid address.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • Nuclear support for a hydrogen economy.
    zippo on 04/23/2007 at 2:58 AM
    Posts:
    24
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    I wish people would just get over the fears they cling to so dearly regarding nuclear power. If an adequate contingent of nuclear generation facilities were constructed, then a hydrogen economy would certainly be viable, in my opoinion.

    Also, technologies avaiable today make nuclear power almost risk free. If I could refer readers to a previous TechReview article:
    http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/12727/
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Nuclear support for a hydrogen economy.
      rhapsodyinglue on 04/23/2007 at 1:59 PM
      Posts:
      55
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      Zippo, In our free market economy usually only the most cost effective solutions are viable.  From what I've read it seems that even with high temperature thermal generation of hydrogen from nuclear, by the time you've transported the hydrogen and converted it to electricity in a car fuel cell you're left with less electricity than if you had used the nuclear plant to generate electricity in the first place and stored it using batteries in the car.

      I simply don't see a day, even with many extra nuclear plants, that throwing away energy converting to hydrogen and back to electricity would make sense.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: Nuclear support for a hydrogen economy.
        zippo on 04/23/2007 at 11:00 PM
        Posts:
        24
        Avg Rating:
        4/5
        Yeah, your probably right. I have seen a model that simultaneously transports hydrogen and uses it to cool a superconducting layer in its pipeline. In this way, hydrogen is efficiently transported and electricity can be transmitted much farther. Again, it all comes back to efficiency, as you said, but it's an interesting concept.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • Re: Nuclear support for a hydrogen economy.
          rhapsodyinglue on 04/24/2007 at 1:10 AM
          Posts:
          55
          Avg Rating:
          4/5
          Even electric tranmission is pretty effecient using current technology.  There are many High Voltage DC (HVDC) lines that run over long distances using up to 500,000V.  I remember seeing some grand plans for huge solar projects in North Africa with an undersea HVDC to Europe.  I believe it mentioned transmission losses of 5-7%.

          Wonder if superconducting would have any economic benefit.
          Rate this comment: 12345
          • Re: Nuclear support for a hydrogen economy.
            zippo on 04/24/2007 at 9:52 AM
            Posts:
            24
            Avg Rating:
            4/5
            I also wonder what would happen if electrical generation failed and people who rely on battery-powered vehicles couldn't juice up, such as in a black-out? Would they have to keep a gasoline generator on hand, or could they simply stock-pile surplus energy on the grid in the form of hydrogen?
            I think that would be an excellant use for hydrogen generation. Sure, surplus energy can be stored in batteries or diverted, but batteries degrade over time and need replacing. If you simply divert the extra energy, in some extreme cases, you can have a cascade failure like the one we saw a little while back. That was New England, right? Hydrogen, on the other hand, if stored correctly, can be held on tap for a much longer time. I would imagine that some form of battery or capacitor would need to be used in the process, when the amount of current on the grid gets so high that electrolysis can't keep up.

            What do you think?
            Rate this comment: 12345
            • Re: Nuclear support for a hydrogen economy.
              Troop4Guy on 11/28/2007 at 2:35 PM
              Posts:
              3
              Use your nuclear for a continuous, reliable energy supply, and use your "flaky" renewable sources - wind and solar - to make hydrogen for storage and linear drawdown. Gas pumps don't run in a blackout, either. What about home electrolysis using a wind generator? How fast does the guy commuting to work need to make hydrogen, anyway? The compressor and control system that collects it to storage would run off the grid.
              Rate this comment: 12345
              • Re: Nuclear support for a hydrogen economy.
                Fabricatorz on 12/14/2007 at 2:20 PM
                Posts:
                2
                The proponents of 'safe' nuclear energy have still not adequately addressed the issue of nuclear waste.  There are existing storage facilities which are insufficient and actually leaking into waterways such as the Columbia River. 
                Rate this comment: 12345
                • Re: Nuclear support for a hydrogen economy.
                  dthompson on 12/26/2007 at 9:54 AM
                  Posts:
                  1
                  The Integral Fast Reactor solved many issues with Nuclear generation and waste.  This reactor runs on the waste products of existing light water reactors.  These plants can be built near the current stockpiles of waste and will reduce the existing waste while pulling additional energy!  Argonne National Labs had a working prototype when John Kerry successfully lobbied to can the program.

                  http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/designs/ifr/anlw.html
                  Rate this comment: 12345
                  • Re: Nuclear support for a hydrogen economy.
                    Tanarax on 01/09/2008 at 6:05 PM
                    Posts:
                    3
                    If we all really truly "dont want it in my backyard". I don't see why, if it is such a problem, we don't just load up all the waste in old ICBM's and shoot them into the sun. The cost of fuel and soon to be junked missles can't be more than the cost of guarding it for thousands of years while it's half-life slowly runs its course
                    Rate this comment: 12345
                    • Re: Nuclear support for a hydrogen economy.
                      hachi on 04/28/2008 at 8:49 AM
                      Posts:
                      29
                      Avg Rating:
                      3/5
                      I think the "sending it to the sun" suggestion was covered by the way-too-high chances of the rocket blowing up, or the chances of it being targeted by a RPG, turning it basically into a dirty bomb.
                      Rate this comment: 12345
  • GM's on the right track
    asdar on 04/23/2007 at 8:55 AM
    Posts:
    64
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    Not the fuel cells per se, but the whole concept of a flexible plug in hybrid with electric drive.

    China is building a lot of nuclear with plans to go nuclear-->Hydrogen. They should display the fuel cell version there. Europe is Diesel, they should have a diesel generator version when they show there. The U.S. is still gas/ethanol, Brazil is Ethanol.

    Make the car flexible enough to accept all sources and economical enough to compete and you've got a sure winner.

    Flexibility through electricity is the way through all the new technology maze.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • longer view
    dlathrop52 on 04/23/2007 at 9:47 AM
    Posts:
    1
    while it is, today, not realistic to derive hydrogen from fossil fuels, the longer term potential of hydrogen in the transportation fuel cycle makes this prototype, and others like it, worthy of pursuit.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Is the car a bomb?
    alanpeg on 04/23/2007 at 9:56 AM
    Posts:
    1
    How safe is it to travel around with 10,000 psi of HAZMAT in your trunk?
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Is the car a bomb?
      asa1940 on 04/23/2007 at 11:32 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Avg Rating:
      5/5
      A lot safer than traveling around with 20 gallons of gasoline HAZMAT in your trunk.  Witness all the people who burn to death each year from gasoline fires following car accidents.  By contrast, the hydrogen release from a rupture in an automotive hydrogen tank or supply line would dissipate so fast that no explosion or fire is likely.  Lockheed investigated the safety of hydrogen as an airplane fuel for the U-2 and for the L-1011 and found no undue safety hazard.  The Challenger astronauts were right next to the hydrogen/oxygen fuel tanks explosion (massive amount of liquid hydrogen) but were not killed by that explosion.  Photographs of the Hindenburg crash show that it is the burning skin of the dirigible that endangered the passengers with fire.  It is not clear that the hydrogen in the Hindenburg even exploded, but if it did, the explosion did not significantly damage the dirigible, a fragile airship.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: Is the car a bomb?
        Tanarax on 01/09/2008 at 6:17 PM
        Posts:
        3
        The MSDS lists Hydrogen as having a combustable range of 4-75% of total air concentration. Thats a pretty huge range for a combustable. The idea that all of the fuel in the canisters could leak out without any sparks igniting it seems possible. Possible seems to travel over to almost impossible if the leak is taking place during the middle of a vehicle collision.
        Rate this comment: 12345
  • The viability of hydrogen.
    Hardheadjarhead on 04/23/2007 at 10:50 AM
    Posts:
    15
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    Nuclear energy could certainly crank out enough hydrogen for everyone.  The problems right now with hydrogen are storage and perfection of the fuel cells. 

    The article mentioned how hybrids that draw off the grid pump less carbon into the atmosphere than internal combustion cars.  This is true.  Ethanol versions of a plug in hybrid would release far less carbon into the air than the gasoline versions...but even the gas versions would be less polluting.

    AND if you're not one for environmentalism...think of releasing ourselves from dependency on foreign oil.

    I so wish they'd market this car!  I want two.

    S
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: The viability of hydrogen.
      dmtk on 04/24/2007 at 3:15 AM
      Posts:
      4
      Can you show me a research or study showing that we have enough uranium and we can build enough nuclear power plants economicaly viable to replace *all* fossils in transportation with hydrogen and for how much time. Is nuclear power the final solution?
      Because that is how I read "Nuclear energy could certainly crank out enough hydrogen for everyone."
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • Possible, but best option?
    MITBeta on 04/23/2007 at 12:10 PM
    Posts:
    24
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    While (insert favorite alternative energy source here) energy may be able to crank out lots of hydrogen, shouldn't we be evaluating the inefficiencies of the hydrogen fuel cell cycle up front to determine whether it's a good idea?

    Seems to me that if you supply electricity to battery powered cars instead of to electrolizers you come out way ahead on energy and cost.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • GO GM
    eshaqm on 04/23/2007 at 1:07 PM
    Posts:
    1
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    I applaud GM for trying to think out side the box and seeing the necessity of moving beyond oil. The Fuel Cell Volt is a great example of that. I think that it will ultimately be beneficial for GM. The paradigm shift has started taking place and it is just a matter of time (10-20 years) before oil is significantly replaced by hydrogen and other environmentally friendly sources of energy
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • FCV
    braham on 04/23/2007 at 1:08 PM
    Posts:
    2
    Typical non engineering view.
    Reminds me of the MIT report ~99-21 that computers where not improving productivity.
    The opinions expressed by MIT have not been supported by engineering data.
    Fuel Cells where first used on the Gemini vehicle.
    MIT objected and backed the high temperature technologies that have delayed progress for many years.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • GM's fuel cell car is the only answer
    lowilliams on 04/23/2007 at 1:59 PM
    Posts:
    17
    Avg Rating:
    2/5

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) tells us that the carbon dioxide produced by combustion is changing the composition of the atmosphere.  The carbon dioxide will warm the world and alter the climate.  Climate changes will cause severe problems.  People from Al Gore to Tom Freedmen, author of “The Earth is Flat”, have called for the development of a new energy infrastructure to counter carbon dioxide build up.  They endorse a development program on the scale of the Apollo program.  Apollo was a Maximum Effective Effort program.  To be ready to respond we need to take a sober and probing look at the magnitude and nature of the challenges. 

    The non-human energy used in the United States is energetically equal to about 90 servants working for each of us every day.  Support from these energy servants is the source of our high standard of living.  The energy for the servants comes from the combustion of fossil fuels that produce carbon dioxide.  We must stop adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as soon as we are able. This will ameliorate climate change and preserve fossil fuel chemicals for higher value uses in commodities such as plastics, rubber, fibers, drugs and lubricants.    

    Some deny the danger from carbon dioxide and say “take no action; the magic of the open market will solve all problems”.  They treat the world as a business in liquidation. They expect to sell all the earth’s resources at what ever price today’s market can bear.  They believe we can transition from the current burning of oil/natural gas/coal to a future system based on tar sands, shale oil and liquid fuels from coal.  They ignore the danger from climate change and they ignore the higher value of hydrocarbon as chemical feed stocks.  These beliefs show little or no concern for the future of life on the earth and are immensely dangerous to the long term survival of humanity.   

    Another group suggested for energy we should continue to burn the carbon compounds and bury the carbon dioxide underground for future generations to manage.  They promote a puerile plan called sequesterization.  Simply put, they recommend we continue to burn fossil fuels and pump carbon dioxide into the ground in the hope that it will never be released.  Unfortunately, they have no way to ensure future safety.  Those that promote this concept need to look anew at Lake Nyos in Cameroon.  In 1984 the lake released sequestered carbon dioxide and suffocated 1700 people, all their livestock, wild life and destroyed most of the vegetation.  As this is being written high pressure underground gas is causing a mud volcano that is destroying thousand of hectares of Indonesia.   Sequesterization is a very dangerous strategy.  It does not preserve the fossil fuel chemicals for higher value use.  It appears corrupt to pass the problem to a future generation.  Sequesterization of carbon dioxide is only slightly less dangerous than denying that it causes global warming.   

    Others promote growing crops for energy.  Humanity is able to produce only slight more food than is required to support our 6.5 billion members.  For the United States farm crops would be required to provide many times the current yield.  The mismatch between the fossil fuel energy needed to support our 90 servants and the energy available from farm crops is so extreme that there is no hope of growing adequate crops to feed humanity and supply our energy needs.

    Some think that fluorescent light bulbs, recycling, and hybrid cars are the answer.  While useful, these things will not end the production of carbon dioxide.  These folks believe that extensive harvesting of renewable energy is the answer.  Wind, solar, and the like are clearly a vast improvement over burning fossil fuels.  Unfortunately, renewables are very unreliable.  Wind is only available part of the time.  In the northern climes clouds prevent effective collection of solar energy.  Dams teach us that large scale harvesting of renewable energy can cause environmental harm.  We need to harvest renewable energy when practical, but a reliable back up energy source (a base load source) is necessary.   The question is: what combination of energy sources can form the new infrastructure?

    Fission nuclear energy, based on uranium, is unsatisfactory.  Thus far there is no acceptable solution for the transportation and storage of high level radioactive waste produced by fission.  In extensive use of current once through reactor technology, the uranium (a relatively rare element) supply would be depleted in 50 to 100 years.  Uranium depletion leads to a scenario in which we become dependent on fission and accept the use of breeder reactors.  Breeder reactors magnify all the shortcomings of burner reactors and in addition add the threat of large quantities of bomb grade uranium and plutonium circulating as articles of commerce.  This will delight the terrorists of the world.  

    I think the answer is: humanity should empower all possible means of improving efficiency; any energy saved represents a reduction in the production of carbon dioxide.   Then humanity must support the harvesting of all the renewable sources practical.  As soon as we are able we must develop nuclear fusion (not uranium fission) as the base load energy supply.  Sir David King, the chief science advisor for the United Kingdom, recommends that fusion is the answer to future energy needs (King, David, ‘Fast Forward to Fusion’ New Scientist, Issue 2442, 10 April 2004).  Unfortunately, within the United States the Department Of Energy (dedicated to fission), with encouragement from the fossil fuel industry, have been apathetic regarding the development of fusion. 

    In 1992, a fusion reactor produced energy for a short time; a scheme to build a utility reactor was proposed; it is called the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). In July 2005, the journal NATURE reported that after 13 years of procrastination and haggling the multi-nation ITER team reached an agreement.  ITER will be constructed at Cadarache, France; this is good news!  In other reports, Raymond L. Orbach of the United States Department Of Energy told the United States press that the ITER might lead to a power plant in the year 2040; this is bad news.  The approved design envisions an ITER reactor one-half the size desired by the technical team; this is also bad news.  The small size is reputed to save money, but it magnifies the potential for failure.

    In rebuttal to Mr. Orbach’s schedule, see the 1976 report, FUSION POWER BY MAGNETIC CONFINEMENT, ERDA-76/110/1, UC-20, Page 8.  (ERDA is the United States Energy Research and Development Administration, a precursor to the current DOE). This 1976 ERDA report states that building a pilot fusion reactor would take 10 to 13 years with a Maximum Effective Effort (using 1976 technology and computers). 

    Renewables and fusion can provide the carbon dioxide free energy we need to support our 90 servants.  Renewables produce heat or electricity and fusion produces heat and from heat more electricity; how do we get the energy to our servants?  Dr. Tesla’s electricity has a number of very serious shortcomings.  The electric supply system is terribly fragile.  Every year throughout the world weather knocks out electric transmission. The outages result in disruption of society and even some deaths when critical equipment stops working.  Electricity starts many fires that destroy property.  People are killed by the fires and direct electrocution.   Electricity is very difficult to store.  Dribs and drabs can be stored in batteries but most must be used as it is made.  Because it cannot be stored in quantity it has limited use in transportation.  Only trains running of fixed right-of-ways can be powered by electricity.  We must have a storable fuel that can be easily made from renewable supplied or fusion supplied energy sources.  Hydrogen is that fuel. 

    Electricity produced by any energy source can decompose water in an electrolyzer to produce hydrogen to serve as fuel and the valuable by-product, oxygen.  Hydrogen can be transmitted to all energy consumers through pipelines in the same manner that natural gas is delivered.  Pipeline delivery is far more reliable than electric wires.  The inherent volume of the pipelines smooths the sporadic output of the renewable energy sources.  Smoothing of the output of the renewable sources makes their use far more practical.  Hydrogen has been demonstrated as a fuel for automobiles, planes, and all other forms of transportation.  All operations that require electricity will generate it locally with hydrogen-air fuel cells with hydrogen supplied from the reliable pipeline.  When hydrogen is used as a fuel the oxygen it consumes is exactly equal to the oxygen produced when the water was decomposed in the electrolyzer.  With this energy infrastructure all materials in the energy cycle are completely recycled.  The oxygen by-product can be used to ameliorate other challenges such as solid waste disposal and purifying water.   

    I appeal to the scientific community to provide strong support ITER and to lobby for a second development activity for other types of thermonuclear reactors, possibly the boron plus hydrogen reaction.  The boron plus hydrogen reaction is nearly radiation free.  With these two projects competing useful results will be obtained in the shortest possible time.  With a Maximum Effective Effort similar to the Apollo program, it appears reasonable to project the solution to the global warming problem, to provide energy independence for most nations and aid it providing clean water, all by 2050.  
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: GM's fuel cell car is the only answer
      lambdafunds on 04/23/2007 at 2:24 PM
      Posts:
      9
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      I agree, totally.  Yes, we need alternative energy sources, but, aside from hydro, none are reliable for the vast amounts of base load power we need.

      So, we must pursue all of the power souyrces you mentioned.

      I would differ in one regard: France obtains 80% of its electrical power from fission, and has faced few problems.  We must add fission reactors as well, until fusion becomes available.

      Finally, we need a tax (or cap and trade) law to raise the cost of emitting carbon dioxide.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: GM's fuel cell car is the only answer
        rhapsodyinglue on 04/26/2007 at 8:32 PM
        Posts:
        55
        Avg Rating:
        4/5
        I'd have to disagree with the statement than none other than hydro can serve as baseload.

        Concentrating solar can store heat and be used to provide 24hr baseload, or 18hr or 16 or whatever best matches requirements.  Geothermal can be baseload.  Wave power is very predictable if not constant.
        Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: GM's fuel cell car is the only answer
      dmtk on 04/24/2007 at 3:28 AM
      Posts:
      4
      I found myself a little ITER sceptic. According to their site:
      http://www.iter.org/a/index_nav_1.htm

      First commersial ITER-derived power plant is not awaited before 2050. I think we all know how vulnarable to delays all research projects are especcialy the biggest ones. So I am little sceptic about it. Keeping in mind the moderate "Oil Peak" prognosis that around 2015-2020 oil production will stop being able to increase with the speed the deman increases. This will put additiona preasure on electricity production because I believe by 2015 there will be many EVs (pure or not) on the roads.
      So personaly I think ITER will be too late on the scene.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: GM's fuel cell car is the only answer
      asdar on 04/24/2007 at 9:56 AM
      Posts:
      64
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      I don't think a fuel cell car is the only possible answer. There are problems with the fuel cell, problems with producing Hydrogen, and problems of delivering the Hydrogen to the fuel cell.

      If, and it's a big if I'll admit, we can advance battery technology, then batteries are the only answer because they're hands down better than any possible future that expends energy to free Hydrogen and then reintroduces it for further inefficiencies.

      I strongly support the research because I think it's better safe than sorry, but I'd put more research into batteries, and possibly ways to recharge those batteries on the roads over Fuel cells.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: GM's fuel cell car is the only answer
      Fabricatorz on 12/14/2007 at 2:38 PM
      Posts:
      2
      Stating that a partcular technology is 'the only answer' is a dangerously limited view.  Combinations of emerging technologies will certainly be the future. I support all-electric vehicles charged by clean generated electricity.  Studies show that the limited range of EV's is adequate for some 80% of daily driving demands. Battery technology is advancing rapidly, as are wind and solar technologies.  GM's killing of the EV1 was a huge step backwards. 
      Rate this comment: 12345